Dong v MCI 2010 FC 575 Religious Persecution

The court concluded that the tribunal erred in law in rejecting a claim based on religious persecution: The Member seems to be of the impression that a religious adherent is not subject to persecution if only her place of worship is destroyed, but she is not subject to arrest. Freedom of religion includes the right to go public, the right to spread the gospel, the right to bear witness. As Mr. Justice Denault stated in Fosu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 90 F.T.R. 182, 27 Imm. L.R. (2d) 95, basing himself on the Handbook of Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: It appeared from a careful analysis of the evidence and the decision in the case at bar that this Court should intervene. I feel that the Refugee Division unduly limited the concept of religious practice, confining it to "praying to God or studying the Bible". The fact is that the right to freedom of religion also includes the freedom to demonstrate one's religion or belief in public or in private by teaching, practice, worship and the performance of rites. As a corollary to this statement, it seems that persecution of the practice of religion can take various forms, such as a prohibition on worshipping in public or private, giving or receiving religious instruction or, the implementation of serious discriminatory policies against persons on account of the practice of their religion. In the case at bar I feel that the prohibition made against Jehovah's Witnesses meeting to practise their religion could amount to persecution. That is precisely what the Refugee Division had to analyze.